from the watch-out-for-the-three-eyed-fish dept.
Late last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its first new operating license in nearly two decades. It was issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has finally completed the Watts Bar 2 reactor over 40 years after work was started on the site. The plant may begin generating electricity before the year is out.
Construction on the site was put on hiatus in 1985, but efforts to complete it were restarted in 2007. After work had restarted, the Fukushima disaster led to significant revisions of the safety regulations in the US; Watts Bar 2 becomes the first plant to meet all these requirements. Its license is good for 40 years.
According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the total cost for completion was $6 billion.
The NRC's announcement is here. [PDF]
Related Stories
Various news outlets report that Unit 2 of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), has begun operation. The reactor is rated at 1.15 GW and cost $4.7 billion ($4.09 per watt). Ground was broken on the project in 1973; construction work was suspended from 1985 to 2007.
Watts Bar Unit 1, which began operation in 1996, is one of three plants which manufacture tritium under contract to the U.S. government for use in hydrogen bombs.
Around the United States, 99 other commercial nuclear reactors are in operation and four others are under construction:
[...] Scana Corp./SCE&G's V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 in South Carolina and Southern Co.'s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia.
In related news, the TVA is taking bids for its unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in fabulous Hollywood, Alabama. It has received a bid of $38 million.
coverage:
- VOA News (U.S. government source)
- Fresno Bee
- Chattanooga Times Free Press
- Knoxville News Sentinel
- Bloomberg BNA
- The Hill
- Power Magazine
previously:
US Regulators Issue First Nuclear Plant Operating License Since 1996
(Score: 2, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:50AM
The plant cost $6 billion, and "[e]ach of the Watts Bar units produce 1,150 megawatts, or enough power for about 650,000 homes [timesfreepress.com]."
So, that's about $10,000 / home...which is about how much it would have cost to put solar panels on all those homes. Especially if part of a bulk buy / big contract deal.
But that's just the beginning, of course. With solar, you pay your ten large up front and, within rounding, you never pay another dime. But, for the privilege of being serviced by the utility's nuke plant, you're permitted to pay thousands per year for forever.
Never mind any environmental or other sorts of arguments. Nuclear is just too fucking expensive to be anything other than socialist make-work giveaways to the Koch Brothers and their ilk.
You want true capitalistic American independence? That's solar, through and through. Only pinko commie welfare queens benefit from nuclear.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:10AM
While I recognize there is substantial geek love toward nuclear power because technology is neat, it is an inherently power-centric system (in both senses of the word power). It requires massive infrastructure, owned by a very select few, and certainly birthed in those political back rooms now mostly free of cigar smoke. Solar (and especially wind due to simpler manufacturing requirements) is in contrast, distributed, DIY to a large degree, and under the control of the end user. In other words, nuclear is MS or Apple.
(Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:38AM
It requires massive infrastructure, owned by a very select few,
Wow. Couldn't have been more wrong....
The Tennessee Valley Authority [wikipedia.org] (TVA) is a federally owned corporation in the United States created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression.
WE own it. And it should not be lost on anyone that this long suffering project which delivered an already obsolete design 40 years too late, billions over budget, and licensed by an agency that really couldn't say NO, was done by, wait for it..... Big Government.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @09:41AM
"We" own it. Yeah, right. As if it makes any difference.
Like "we the people" have any say in how TVA contracts out over-priced work to Bechtel, Combustion Engineering, Westinghouse, GE, Siemens, ABB, and all the other nuclear profiteers.
Like "we the people" have any real say in government Big or Small...elections are bought and paid for by lobbyists/PACs, and the elected puppets dance as ordered.
Like "we the people" can indemnify ourselves against being responsible for operating costs, disaster planning, and disposal costs forever and ever amen.
"We the people" are, collectively, a lot of lazy, inconsequential fuckwits.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:35PM
"We" own it. Yeah, right. As if it makes any difference.
You are right, it makes no difference. The massive C02 reduction will happen no matter who owns it.
C02 per mWh is about 200 lbs from coal (about half that for natural gas). So that's a reduction of up to 230,000 lbs of C02 emissions per year.
reference [eia.gov]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:02AM
" 40 years too late, billions over budget, and licensed by an agency that really couldn't say NO, was done by, wait for it..... Big Government"
To be fair, once Three Mile Island happened, new nuclear construction was completely stopped. Environmental groups rode the wave of public outrage and the approval pipeline was effectively closed. Any reactor application not already in the pipeline was effectively shut out. This was a political decision... nuclear did not have the lobby money of the oil companies on the both sides of the aisle and was being actively lobbied against by the green wing of the democratic party. The nuclear industry did not have a well funded political organization to back it up.
From a political standpoint, President Bush (43) re-started the NRC approval machinery with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which had been, for all practical purposes, frozen since the Carter administration. From that standpoint, this reactor went from complete standstill on construction in 2005 (though the initial design approvals has been given in the 70s and preliminary construction had already begun) to approval in 2007 which is pretty much ludicrous speed when it comes to the NRC. They were not going to restart the whole process with a new design that had not been approved... this design is old but it is an already approved design. Had they restarted with a more modern design, it would be another 10 years (at best) before construction could even be started again.
As far as costs, the nuclear industry is the most regulated industry in the US (healthcare may be more regulated these days but who knows now). So, like anything else, these things take time. Because construction had been halted for so long, a lot of expertise, both bureaucratic and technical, to navigate the approval and construction process has been aging out of the industry. The only real American nuclear technician training program is the US Navy which has almost nothing in common with civilian nuclear bureaucratic processes. It takes years to train people; you need a pipeline of supporting manufacturing processes. You cannot just source a bolt from some supplier - you need paperwork showing that the bolt is rated for nuclear reactor use. The US will need years of regular construction to rebuild the expertise pipeline and manufacturing sources to achieve any economy of scale; until then, every reactor is going to be an expensive endeavor.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:10PM
WE own it.
Which is another way of saying a few bureaucrats make all the important decisions.
And it should not be lost on anyone that this long suffering project which delivered an already obsolete design 40 years too late, billions over budget, and licensed by an agency that really couldn't say NO, was done by, wait for it..... Big Government.
Who rarely have to eat their own dog food.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:06PM
WE own it
.
Which is another way of saying a few bureaucrats make all the important decisions.
Is there someone else you would like to nominate?
Small business can't build reactors.
Big business can't be trusted - you'd be first in line to bitch about that.
Big government apparently meets with your disapproval.
So, what then? Local School boards? Citizens committees? Public Votes on each important decision?
Union of concerned scientists?
I astounded you weren't leading the cheering section for something finally done right by big government. Something measurable finally completed.....
Tell us exactly how a country should build a reactor project of this scale?
How much of society should we remake to satisfy your whims?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:23AM
Small business can't build reactors.
Big business can't be trusted - you'd be first in line to bitch about that.
No, I'd select both these groups. If one is "trusting" a nuclear plant operator, one is doing it wrong. In addition, private parties can't hide behind sovereign immunity, preferential treatment by regulation, or selective enforcement of regulation.
I astounded you weren't leading the cheering section for something finally done right by big government. Something measurable finally completed.....
An old generation nuclear reactor when there are apparently two measurable generations since that reactor was designed. Would a private business be able to get away with that?
Tell us exactly how a country should build a reactor project of this scale?
Well, halting construction and letting it sit around for 20 years is no doubt a sound approach.
How much of society should we remake to satisfy your whims?
The part where I'm not getting a substantial part of the entire world's GDP. I think 10 trillion dollars per year (in current dollars) would cover my needs.
(Score: 2) by bryan on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:01PM
That would sure give a more literal meaning to "blue screen of death."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:08AM
If anything, nuclear is pure capitalist -- soliciting vast amounts of government funding to build something purely for private profit. Solar would actually be more socialist as a distributed system that allows the individuals to contribute back to the grid ("From each according to his ability to each according to his need"). And you're right, this is the best way to go.
But of course, this is a silly premise to begin with, as it's not really possible for energy to have a political bias.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:17AM
Solar. Install once and never pay another dime.
Except:
-the solar panels that break
-the various electronics that fail
Then there are the completely trivial problems of managing the load when the sun is shining in the middle of the day, and when there is no sunlight at all.
Because solar energy and nuclear power have exactly the same power generation characteristics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:48AM
Agreed on the nighttime and load balancing details. Of course the cult of musk is going to change all of that with battery packs, etc,etc. I may believe more once they are actually installed and running.
Now solar panels themselves hardly ever break. 99% percent of the time the happily church out lower well beyond their rated lifespans... They do degrade over time, but not as much as you'd think. Inverters do break almost like clockwork around the 10 year mark, but they aren't too pricey and get cheaper/more efficient every day.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:32PM
Wait awhile after they first start installing them. If none of the batteries catch fire, then perhaps it's a well thought-out approach.
I'm not convinced by Musk's battery packs. I think they are optimized for cars, which means small and fairly light-weight and good crash resistance, but it not optimal for a fixed installation. Are they good enough? Who knows. I don't believe the PR materials they hand out. I've heard arguments that for a fixed installation lead-acid is better. (I've also heard other, more exotic proposals.) I don't think flow batteries are good for an installation as small as a house, but why not lead-acid? Well...they *do* take up a lot of room, and they have limited lifetime. (I've had a car battery die after almost 5 years...just before the warranty expired!) But they're unlikely to burn up your house.
OTOH, I'm also not sure that Musk's battery pack can rightfully be compared to the laptop batteries that catch fire. But I can't tell.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:13AM
Riiight, what a great idea, because the sun never sets so you get power 24/7, battery tech has gotten so powerful and cheap everybody can have enough batteries, and of course large enough homes to house all these batteries, that long periods without sun isn't an issue...BTW did you notice its TN? Ever been to TN? I've lived there and they have rainy seasons where you might be lucky to see the sun twice in a week and a half, kinda like what they are seeing right now [accuweather.com].
I'm sorry but the so called "green" technology simply ignores too many issues, such as storage, the ability to ramp up when there is peak power required (try living in TN in August without AC units blasting 24/7) and times when the weather simply refuses to cooperate. I'm personally damned glad my state has 2 reactors instead of listening to you, because thanks to the remnants of the recent hurricane we haven't seen the sun in nearly a week, and according to the forecast we'll only be getting 3 days of sun before another week of rain, your solution would have left us without power...no thanks.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:43PM
Well that just isn't true. You are saying that no home solar panel ever fails, and that they never wear out?
I am all for solar, but lets be realistic about things. Doing stuff costs money.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:09PM
License is for 40 years (and a 20 year extension wouldn't be surprising).. What is the expected lifespan of the setup you had in mind? (Also - what would your plan be [and at wgat cost] to provide power during the night?)
And your quip about politics - nuclear is refreshingly non-political (here in sweden this has led to the hillarious situation of when russia or china build a reactor the enviornmenralists cry "that's communistic" and when something nuclear happens in usa or japan they cry "that's capitalistic" (and oddly enough they remain silent on s.korea and UAE).
(Score: 5, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:28AM
To be clear, the $6B total represents the construction as well as decommissioning cost of the plant in 40 years, including waste disposal. This is mandated by the NRC - TVA had to set aside the money for the decommissioning of the plant during construction.
Every time something nuclear comes up, we here "if only we spent more money on solar." Everybody has been talking about solar as "the answer" for the past 30 years. Instead of dragging their feet, the environmental movement could have gotten behind nuclear and the US could have replaced its entire coal infrastructure by now. Instead, we spent the last 30 years saying "just a few more years and solar will be working".
We have a working solution today. We do not have to burn coal today. A nuclear plant takes about 5 years to build. According to the EPA's figures, we could eliminate roughly 1600 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (about 23% of the TOTAL CO2 equivalent output for the whole country) by replacing every coal plant in the country with a nuclear plant. This is technology that is available today. It works today. Instead of spending the next 20 years arguing about more money for solar, 1% improvements here and there, we can actually do something that will have a substantial and real effect today.
According to the EPA and EIA:
"In 2013, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,673 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents"
"31% of CO2 emissions was attributed to the electrical generation sector. "
Coal plants account for 77% of emissions but only 39% of total electrical generation capacity. 19% of total electrical generation is nuclear.
"76% of emissions in the electrical sector come from coal plants, 22% from natural gas, 1% from petroleum and http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html
- US Energy Information Administration- http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=11 [eia.gov]
- World Nuclear http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf [world-nuclear.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:34AM
Oops misplaced character caused half my comment to go missing... should have previewed more closely.
To be clear, the $6B total represents the construction as well as time decommissioning cost of the plant, including waste disposal. This is mandated by the NRC - TVA had to set aside the money for the decommissioning of the plant during construction.
Every time something nuclear comes up, we here "if only we spent more money on solar." Everybody has been talking about solar as "the answer" for the past 30 years. Instead of dragging their feet, the environmental movement could have gotten behind nuclear and the US could have replaced its entire coal infrastructure by now. Instead, we spent the last 30 years saying"just a few more years and solar will be working".
We have a working solution today. We do not have to burn coal today. A nuclear plant takes about 5 years to build. According to the EPA's own figures, we could eliminate roughly 1600 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (about 23% of the TOTAL CO2 equivalent output for the whole country) by replacing every coal plant in the country with a nuclear plant. This is technology that is available today. It works today. Instead of spending the next 20 years arguing about 1% improvements here and there, we can actually do something that will have a substantial and real effect today.
According to the EPA and EIA:
In 2013, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,673 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
31% of CO2 emissions was attributed to the electrical generation sector.
Coal plants account for 77% of emissions but only 39% of total electrical generation capacity. 19% of total electrical generation is nuclear.
76% of emissions in the electrical sector come from coal plants, 22% from natural gas, 1% from petroleum and less than 1% from other.
Although coal accounts for about 77% of CO2 emissions from the sector, it represents about 39% of the electricity generated in the United States. About 27% of electricity generated in 2013 was generated using natural gas, although this percentage decreased relative to 2012. Petroleum accounts for less than 1% of electricity generation. The remaining generation comes from nuclear (about 19%) and renewable sources (about 13%), which includes hydroelectricity, biomass, wind, and solar.[1] These other sources usually release fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel combustion, if any emissions at all.
It is very hard to find individual data on nuclear CO2 and greenhouse emissions from the EPA but I was able to find this report from the world nuclear (bias, etc but they do cite their sources very well). Nuclear and Wind are closest to each other in terms of emissions per GW/h (World Nuclear page 7 below).
Sources:
- EPA - http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html [epa.gov]
- US Energy Information Administration- http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=11 [eia.gov]
- World Nuclear http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf [world-nuclear.org]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:39AM
Sure, coal is horrible. But nuclear is still pretty horrible too.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:38PM
Not to mention the fact that we would actually be reducing radioactive pollution by replacing coal plant with nuke plants.
Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste [scientificamerican.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:40PM
Well, to be more accurate, estimated decommissioning costs. But one needs to remember that in every case so far the actual decommissioning costs have been drastically underestimated. (That said, I've got to admit that there aren't a large number of actually decommissioned nuclear plants...though there are some that should have been and haven't been.) So the sample size is really too small to evaluate. But IIRC in every single case the decommissioning costs have vastly exceeded the monies set aside for that purpose. Also, there is still no approved disposal site for nuclear waste. (I think it should be reprocessed and reused, but that might cost more than the return. But if so I think it should be included in the decommissioning cost.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Alfred on Tuesday October 27 2015, @01:14PM
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:44PM
Combine that with this:
http://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Blinky [simpsonswiki.com]
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:42AM
What's wrong with nuclear anyway? I think it's great, and I would be happy to have one in my backyard if it means I get unlimited free residential electricity for the supposed risk of nuclear fireball.
In reality, it's probably more likely that you'll get hit by a car when crossing the road.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:44AM
coal can be radioactif if the coal deposit has "impurities".
however i dont understand why we people dont see a nuke for what it is ... a zipper to the stable reality that onve opened will continue to decay on its own and everything it touches will become unstable also.
the best way so imagine is like when harry potter breakes into the vualt in gringots of bellatrix crazy. pop, pop, po and more pop.